Michael on Misrepresentation

December 14, 2004

I was having a private email dialogue with a student and in the process found it appropriate to send this excerpt from Michael. The discussion was based on the interesting reactions people have to the evolution of the teachings versus the dogmatic protection of the “original” information in the Yarbro books. For example, Magnetic Old Kings were barely mentioned in the original books, but there was no mention of Magnetic Old Servers, Warriors, Artisans, etc. Some people believe that because extended information was not explored, then anything beyond that original printed word must have no validity at all. Over the years a lot of information and understanding have evolved beyond the “original” printed word through the collaborations and contributions of channels and students, and with an amazing cohesiveness despite the lack of that same cohesiveness in community.

Anyway, it inspired me to look for this comment from Michael and I invite your feedback!


Our Teaching is ‘alive’ and thus, continues to be capable of evolution. We will always seek various channels to convey our words as this encourages evolution and removes a constrictive, ultimate authority; however, there will always be those who wish to tame and domesticate our teaching into something manageable, absolute, and even reliant on a falsely-ultimate authority. That is the nature of any fragment with issues involving want, security or control.

We remind you that our teaching CANNOT be misrepresented. This is because our teaching, even when presented in its purest form, will always be filtered through interpretations of the receiver. It follows that even the most distorted version of our teaching can also have its basic truths extracted through the interpretations of the receiver. We rely on our students to discern appropriately. And finally, it is either our teaching or it is not.

One can always gauge one’s accuracy of interpretation of our teachings by one’s own level of defensiveness. If one feels compelled to defend or withhold an aspect of the teaching from coming under question or change, one is most likely distorting several aspects of the information.

We realize we have channels who are stronger in certain areas than other channels, but all of our valid channels are able to hold a discussion about any basic foundation of our teaching. When one aspect of the teaching becomes assigned to one channel as being the only source or authority of that aspect, we would suggest a greater level of questioning of that source. We do not choose channels who can become exclusive to specific areas; we choose channels who have particular strengths. We never seek a channel to which our students must succumb to reliance of that one channel for any one aspect of information. If one channel claims to have received ‘new’ information, or a different aspect of a basic foundation, within one year most of our valid channels would be able to utilize that information easily. If after one year no other channel is utilizing that information, or if no other channel is capable of utilizing that information easily, we would suggest that it is the teaching of the channel, not ours.